Instigator / Con
1
1479
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1321
The Second Amendment should be abolished
Status
Finished
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 12 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...
TheRealNihilist
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Politics
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 1,000
Contender / Pro
12
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description
~ 0
/
5,000
No information
Round 1
Abolishing the Second Amendment is taking away freedoms. Here's why.
Let's start with a question. If they abolish the second amendment, who will most likely give up their guns, the law abiding citizens, or the criminals who are shooting people? The law abiding citizens, right? If the criminals aren't afraid of the criminal punishments for killing people (which can be life in prison or even, in some cases, the death penalty) I don't think they'll be afraid of the punishments for having an illegal weapon. Also, theoretically, now the criminals will be less afraid of breaking in houses because the owners (the law abiding citizens) can't protect themselves which will increase burglaries and robberies which will, again theoretically, increase homicides. Also many people find shooting fun. There are rifle and shotgun merit badges in Boy Scouts. Trap shooting is a sport. It's a relatively safe one, too. As far as I can see, so far, football and baseball are actually more dangerous (but if find something against that please tell me and give me a link) and I don't see anyone trying to ban footballs or baseball bats. So really it doesn't solve anything and will just make people mad.
I value life. The second amendment doesn't value the same thing since it is basically a right to bear arms. This doesn't lead to life being protected, it leads to death. The statistics state people are dying. Whether it be murder, suicide etc. They are dying. By removing said guns we can eliminate the problem. My opponent would have to demonstrate how banning guns is worse because the amendment is worth more than life or banning doesn't help. I think the government should be put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens not give them things that can only harm their well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others. Since the government is put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens the government should ban guns.
>>Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?
No it is more of a hunch which what is more effective.
Here is cases where people survived jumping off a bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicides_at_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge#Suicide_rescue
States 34 people have survived.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5175460/
"For every successfully completed suicide there are more than 12 unsuccessful attempts.1 However, surviving an SIGSW is relatively rare and makes up only 1% of all failed suicide attempts"
Guess it is more than a hunch.
>>Someone who simply holds personal property procured through mutually beneficial agreements does not.
Slavery wasn't a mutually beneficial agreement.
"Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
"Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?"
Suicide is intentional self-inflicted homicide.
The government needs to justify the imposition. Someone who simply holds personal property procured through mutually beneficial agreements does not.
Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?
>>I don’t know.
A gun.
>>In general principle, I would assume this is backward.
As a general principle this is not needed but this isn't a general conversation.
"You would have to demonstrate why taking away guns is bad instead of stating taking away property is bad."
In general principle, I would assume this is backward.
I don’t know.
I am a pro life libertarian as of the time of this comment.
>>A gun has a high chance of killing someone, but jumping off a bridge has a high chance of causing death too.
Which one is more?
Aren't you inclined towards lliberty?
A gun has a high chance of killing someone, but jumping off a bridge has a high chance of causing death too.
>>Slaves were not confiscated by the government...They were emancipated.
Do explain to me this again.
Children are given freedom what they like with their time supervised by their parents.
Slaves are not free to do what they like and they are supervised on what they are doing while receiving harsher punishment given they have no real familiarity with the slaves.
Slaves were not confiscated by the government...They were emancipated.
>>Slavery isn't analogous, and that's so obvious I'm taking that as a troll comment.
Yes it is. Slavery is analogous because they were property like how guns are property as well. You would have to demonstrate why taking away guns is bad instead of stating taking away property is bad.
>>I'm not sure if only white people received some form of compensation from the government.
"Only in the District of Columbia, which fell under direct Federal auspices, was compensated emancipation enacted. On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the government paying owners an average of about $300 for each. In 1863, state legislation towards compensated emancipation in Maryland failed to pass, as did an attempt to include it in a newly written Missouri constitution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation
I'm not sure if only white people received some form of compensation from the government. Slavery isn't analogous, and that's so obvious I'm taking that as a troll comment.
I meant to tag him, not you, but it didn't work properly so I didn't tag anyone. Then you replied to me.
>>He's misidentified the fundamental issue at stake from a UK style confiscation, which is property rights, not the right to self defense.
Then why tag me if it was referring to someone else?
>>Slavery is a poor analogy in this instance. Even prior to the civil war there were people saying that the concept of chattel is invalid, that slaves are equal as people.
If it wasn't property why were white people compensated for losses in profits as in reparations?
Slaves weren't as equal as non-slaves because they were claimed as property by slave owners. Slave owners couldn't be owned as property which is why they are different.
He's misidentified the fundamental issue at stake from a UK style confiscation, which is property rights, not the right to self defense.
Slavery is a poor analogy in this instance. Even prior to the civil war there were people saying that the concept of chattel is invalid, that slaves are equal as people.
Property rights were at stake when slaves were going about their freedom. What is your point?
No it isn't. Guns are more effective. It is very unlikely for someone to not die from a shot to the head.
I think that the suicide rate by a gun is comparable to suicide by jumping off a bridge, although I’m not sure. If the death rate is comparable, then taking away guns would encourage more people to jump off of a bridge, which is more painful.
Property rights are at stake from a UK style confiscation.